Kallax.io

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are capped at the 10 closest, each entry carries its next public events, and times are returned in UTC. It does not discuss rate limits, caching, or result ordering beyond proximity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with no filler: the scope and source are front-loaded, followed by the return shape and timezone. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the result shape (10 closest, next public events, UTC times). Combined with the fully documented input schema this is nearly complete; only the ordering/selection logic and any failure behavior for out-of-range coordinates are unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so latitude, longitude, radiusKm (default 25, max 100) and the type enum are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond restating the coordinate framing, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('board game cafés, clubs, stores and groups listed on Kallax.io') scoped by coordinates, which is clearly distinct from find_games and search_collection. However it does not differentiate itself from the sibling find_events_nearby, and in fact mentions returning 'next public events', which blurs the boundary between the two.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the coordinate-based search and the return of nearby communities, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion criteria, and no routing to alternatives such as find_events_nearby or find_games. An agent must infer the selection context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: exactly 10 results, distance-ordered selection, ordering by start time, and UTC timezone for all times. It does not discuss error behavior or missing-coordinate handling, but this is solid added context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose and the result-set characteristics front-loaded. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return shape (10 closest events, start-time order, UTC). Nothing critical is missing for a read-only search, though it omits what happens when fewer than 10 events match and whether the coordinate filter interacts with radius defaults.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so latitude, longitude, radiusKm, date range, and type are all fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'coordinates' and 'date range' without adding syntax, units, or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Find'), resource ('public board game events'), and scope ('near a set of coordinates'). This clearly separates it from find_games and search_collection, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the very similar find_communities_nearby sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No statement of when to use this tool versus find_communities_nearby or the other siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred purely from the purpose sentence.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the description earns credit for adding behavior annotations do not carry: the hard cap of 10 results ranked by popularity, and the AND semantics of filter combination. It stops short of explaining how to reach results beyond the top 10.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with zero padding; scope, filter behavior, and result limits are each stated once and front-loaded in the order an agent needs them.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does its job by disclosing the result shape (10 most popular matches) and how to widen the result set. The absence of any pagination or offset parameter, and the lack of guidance on retrieving beyond the top 10 other than loosening filters, is the main remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each of the six parameters is already documented with defaults and accepted values. The description's only added semantic is that filters combine with AND, which is a genuine but small increment over the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find board games in the Kallax.io catalogue'), which is concrete and immediately actionable. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling search_collection, which an agent could reasonably confuse with catalogue search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains that all filters are optional and AND-combined, and tells the agent what to do when the result set is too small ('narrow the filters to see others'). It gives clear operating context but names no alternative tool or when-not-to-use condition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, not open-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: filters combine with AND and the result set is returned in full, ordered by title. It does not mention any result cap or pagination, so an agent cannot be fully sure the response is bounded.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, no filler. The scope statement comes first, the prerequisite second, and the filter/ordering behavior last, so an agent gets routing information before implementation detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-required-parameter, nine-argument read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, prerequisites, filter combination and result ordering. It doesn't explain the owned-vs-wishlist default or what a game record contains, but the latter is largely inferable from the filter fields.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so per-parameter meaning is already handled and the baseline would be 3. The description adds cross-parameter semantics that the schema cannot express: every filter is optional and they intersect via AND, which materially affects how an agent builds a query.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (search) plus a precisely scoped resource: board games owned or wishlisted by a named Kallax.io user or community. That ownership/community scoping is what separates it from the sibling find_games, which operates on the general game catalog rather than a specific collection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Requires a username, a community name, or both" is an explicit precondition, and "All filters are optional and combined with AND" clarifies how the remaining arguments behave. It never names find_games as the alternative for catalog-wide lookups, so the when-not case is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.